Dr. Ron Paul is one of (if not sin­gu­larly) the most con­sti­tu­tion­ally cor­rect Con­gress­men elected to the United States House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives in recent years. He has cer­tainly been the one lead­ing the charge to “End the Fed,” and oppose uncon­sti­tu­tional leg­is­la­tion that has been com­ing out of Wash­ing­ton (earn­ing him the title of “Dr. NO).

Con­se­quently, it is being asked over and over again, “Why doesn’t the Con­sti­tu­tion Party do every­thing it can to get Con­gress­man Paul elected to the pres­i­dency?” No doubt, Ron Paul is the kind of man that every­one within the Con­sti­tu­tion Party could get behind (and has vir­tu­ally done so in the past).

How­ever, there are seven (7) spe­cific points as to why the Con­sti­tu­tion Party can­not help Dr. Ron Paul in his bid for the Presidency.

POINT ONE – It is impos­si­ble for the Con­sti­tu­tion Party to NOM­I­NATE Repub­li­can Can­di­date for Pres­i­dent, Ron Paul

There are sev­eral rea­sons why it is impos­si­ble for the Con­sti­tu­tion Party to help elect Ron Paul for President.

1) Not in our party

First and fore­most, the rea­son why the Con­sti­tu­tion Party can­not nom­i­nate Ron Paul for Pres­i­dent of these United States of Amer­ica is because Ron Paul has decided to run as a Repub­li­can. There is NO state in the union that allows a candidate’s name to be on an elec­tion bal­lot for more than one party.

2) Sore loser laws

Every state in the union has some sort of “sore loser” law that would pre­vent the Con­sti­tu­tion Party from nom­i­nat­ing Ron Paul after he lost the nom­i­na­tion in the Repub­li­can Pri­maries. To even sug­gest a write-​in cam­paign for Ron Paul after he lost the nom­i­na­tion would be an absolute and com­plete waste of a vote, in that the vote WOULD NOT BE COUNTED.

There is only one sce­nario where the Con­sti­tu­tion Party could nom­i­nate Dr. Paul for pres­i­dent and it is described in “Point Seven (7).”

POINT TWO – It is impos­si­ble for the Con­sti­tu­tion Party to “Help Elect” Repub­li­can Can­di­date for Pres­i­dent, Ron Paul

It has been sug­gested that the Con­sti­tu­tion Party put “Prin­ci­ple over Pol­i­tics” (the Con­sti­tu­tion Party’s offi­cial motto) and help to get Ron Paul nom­i­nated and then elected as the Repub­li­can Can­di­date for Pres­i­dent. There are sev­eral rea­sons why doing so is destructive.

1) Prin­ci­ple over Politics:

In order to dis­cuss the issue of “Prin­ci­ple over Pol­i­tics,” one must first define what prin­ci­ple they are talk­ing about. To most peo­ple, “Prin­ci­ple over Pol­i­tics” is the antithe­sis to “Party Pol­i­tics.” On the one hand, I don’t entirely dis­agree with this, but on the other, prin­ci­ple over pol­i­tics is far more than just sug­gest­ing that we should not be con­cerned with party bound­aries when it comes to being able to sup­port can­di­date of good moral and prin­ci­pled char­ac­ter. The fol­low­ing points three through six address addi­tional prin­ci­ples that must be con­sid­ered when talk­ing about “Prin­ci­ples over Politics.”

2) The destruc­tive nature of the Con­sti­tu­tion Party offi­cially endors­ing Ron Paul for President:

Even if the Con­sti­tu­tion Party went all out to endorse and totally became the Party of Ron Paul and dumped its entire trea­sury into Ron Paul’s Cam­paign and moved every sin­gle one of its vot­ing mem­bers to sup­port Ron Paul with all of their wealth (what lit­tle they have) and ALL of their time, for­go­ing ever other can­di­dacy and focused 110% of our efforts to do noth­ing but elect Ron Paul, at the end of the day, those cor­rupt Repub­li­can Party lead­ers who are being con­trolled by glob­al­ist elit­ists would still reject Ron Paul and then there would be noth­ing left of the Con­sti­tu­tion Party to pro­vide an alter­na­tive can­di­date to the social­ist garbage that the Repub­li­can Party would try to dump on us.

Audrey Queck­boerner, State Chair­per­son of Indi­ana, has pro­vided a per­sonal tes­ti­mony as to the cor­rupt and ille­gal means that kept Ron Paul from being nom­i­nated for Pres­i­dent within the Repub­li­can Party in 2008. She was a Ron Paul del­e­gate to the Repub­li­can State Con­ven­tion and saw first­hand the overt cor­rup­tion that kept his name from being nom­i­nate. Click here to read her tes­ti­mony (in .pdf format).

“Most of us who have had an insider’s view of the Repub­li­can Party know that it has only got­ten worse since 2008 and no amount of “grass roots” efforts will be enough to over­come the glob­al­ist con­spir­acy to destroy this nation.”

– Audrey Queckboerner

It would be a com­plete wasted sac­ri­fice of the Con­sti­tu­tion Party to invest one once of effort to get a Repub­li­can elected as pres­i­dent, even one as awe­some as Ron Paul.

His­tory has shown that every per­son who invests their efforts to elect Ron Paul as pres­i­dent is divert­ing their efforts from build­ing the Con­sti­tu­tion Party. In 2008, many (prob­a­bly most) in the Con­sti­tu­tion Party endorsed and sup­ported Ron Paul with their time, tal­ent, and trea­sure (money) think­ing that they were putting prin­ci­ple over politics.

After drag­ging his cam­paign on and on, Ron Paul finally announced the end of his can­di­dacy and out of spite of Lib­er­tar­ian Can­di­date for Pres­i­dent, Bob Barr, endorsed the Con­sti­tu­tion Party’s can­di­date for Pres­i­dent, Chuck Bald­win. But it didn’t mat­ter because every­one had spent all their money and time on Ron Paul and had noth­ing left for Chuck Baldwin.

Take Illi­nois for instance; they have to get 25,000 uncon­testable sig­na­tures to get on the bal­lot. They were promised money to help them get bal­lot access so that Chuck Baldwin’s name could appear on the bal­lot. How­ever, because of the sup­port of Ron Paul, there was no money in the cof­fers to help them, and Ron Paul sure didn’t release any of the money that Con­sti­tu­tion Party mem­bers donated to his cam­paign and he sure didn’t sug­gest that his sup­port­ers now spend all their time and money to get Bald­win on all state ballots.

4) Ron Paul is a Republican:

While there are those who would sug­gest that this doesn’t mat­ter, it mat­ters a great deal. Ron Paul is a Repub­li­can run­ning as a Repub­li­can can­di­date. It was the cor­rupt Repub­li­can Party Lead­ers that kept him from being nom­i­nated and they are only get­ting bet­ter at it and are even now prepar­ing how they will keep any true con­ser­v­a­tive out of the race.

POINT THREE – The need for an alter­na­tive when Repub­li­cans fail to nom­i­nate Ron Paul

Wouldn’t you agree that if Ron Paul doesn’t get the nom­i­na­tion that there should be a place for all those sup­port­ers to go? What hap­pens if the Repub­li­cans elect some­one who is the antithe­sis to Ron Paul? Where are those peo­ple to go?

If the Con­sti­tu­tion Party spends all of its time and effort to elect Ron Paul and he doesn’t win, then what? Just like in 2008, we’ll have noth­ing left to pro­vide an alter­na­tive. In terms of ship build­ing, the Con­sti­tu­tion Party wouldn’t even be able to pro­vide a raft for peo­ple to jump on, because we will have failed to get bal­lot access in cru­cial states and lost bal­lot access in the states that we do already have bal­lot access because we didn’t pro­vide a pres­i­den­tial candidate.

It would be just as dev­as­tat­ing to sim­ply wait to see if Ron Paul receives the nom­i­na­tion in 2012 because there are some states that don’t even hold their cau­cus until August. By then, it would be too late and ludi­crous to pro­vide a 3rd Party can­di­date at that time.

In the even­tu­al­ity that Ron Paul is not nom­i­nated by the Repub­li­can Party, it is imper­a­tive for the Con­sti­tu­tion Party to be putting every sin­gle resource at our dis­posal to build­ing a great ves­sel to receive all those who finally dis­cover that cor­rup­tion has once again reigned supreme in the Repub­li­can Party. Fail­ing to do so, fails our nation and the Amer­i­can people.

POINT FOUR – Bal­lot Access and a Great Can­di­date of Our Own

One of the most impor­tant tasks of the Con­sti­tu­tion Party is to get bal­lot access in every sin­gle one of the fifty states in the union. The Con­sti­tu­tion Party has sev­eral states that do have bal­lot access and hold pri­maries. How­ever, the party has many more that do not cur­rently have bal­lot access. To sup­port or endorse Ron Paul would mean not gain­ing bal­lot access and loos­ing bal­lot access where it already has it.

1) Those states work­ing for bal­lot access:

Unlike the two major par­ties, 3rd par­ties have a far greater and in most cases daunt­ing chal­lenge of get­ting bal­lot access. Repub­li­cans and Democ­rats take this for granted because it is so easy for them to get on the ballot.

Take Illi­nois for instance. There is only one (1) statewide race and that is for the pres­i­dency. While the two major par­ties only have to get 5,000 sig­na­tures, third party and inde­pen­dent can­di­dates have to deliver 25,000. In 2010, the Con­sti­tu­tion Party deliv­ered over 38,000 sig­na­tures and was still unable to achieve bal­lot access because of “Illi­nois corruption.”

There are oth­ers states that have to deliver far more sig­na­tures than Illi­nois. Indi­ana has to deliver over 34,000 and Okla­homa has to deliver over 75,000 sig­na­tures. There are even states requir­ing more than 100,000 sig­na­tures to gain bal­lot access.

If the Con­sti­tu­tion Party decided to sup­port Ron Paul and did not con­cen­trate on get­ting sig­na­tures, NOW, for the Con­sti­tu­tion Party, it would be absolutely impos­si­ble to do so later. Divert­ing any resource what­so­ever to help­ing Ron Paul win his Repub­li­can nom­i­na­tion would mean the like­li­hood of not achiev­ing bal­lot access in those states.

It is ludi­crous to believe that a per­son sup­port­ing Ron Paul would be try­ing to get sig­na­tures for the Con­sti­tu­tion Party’s can­di­date, all the while trum­pet­ing sup­port for Ron Paul.

2) States with bal­lot access:

There are sev­eral states where the Con­sti­tu­tion Party is actu­ally an estab­lished party, mean­ing they hold pri­maries. As men­tioned before, it would be impos­si­ble for Ron Paul as a Repub­li­can to sign on as the Con­sti­tu­tion Party’s Pres­i­den­tial can­di­date in any state and be elected in the party’s pri­maries. That means, if the Con­sti­tu­tion Party truly endorsed and sup­ported Ron Paul, the Con­sti­tu­tion Party mem­bers would have to forgo Con­sti­tu­tion Party pri­maries and vote in Repub­li­can Pri­maries. This means that state would then loose their bal­lot qual­i­fi­ca­tions and have to start all over again try­ing to obtain bal­lot access again and as men­tion above, which would most likely require sig­na­tures that could be 100 times greater than either of the two major party can­di­dates in the future.

3) A Con­sti­tu­tion Party Candidate:

Fur­ther­more, and most impor­tantly, it is our inten­tion of run­ning a can­di­date who is every bit as good as Ron Paul or even “con­sti­tu­tion­ally” bet­ter. While cer­tainly, Ron Paul is VERY good con­sti­tu­tion­al­ist, he espouses posi­tions that are not in com­plete align­ment with the Con­sti­tu­tion Party’s Platform.

POINT FIVE – The Con­sti­tu­tion Party is not a PAC

There is a huge dif­fer­ence between the mis­sion of a PAC and the mis­sion of a Polit­i­cal Party. The Con­sti­tu­tion Party is a Par­ti­san Polit­i­cal Party that NOM­I­NATES (not endorses) can­di­dates for election.

As a Polit­i­cal Party, endors­ing can­di­dates of another party would destroy the Con­sti­tu­tion Party’s cred­i­bil­ity. It would send a mes­sage that the Con­sti­tu­tion Party does NOT have what it takes to find a Con­sti­tu­tional can­di­date of its own.

POINT SIX – Break­ing the Two-​Party-​Duopoly

The Con­sti­tu­tion Party believes it is time to break the two-​party-​duopoly.

1) Cre­ation of the two-​party-​duopoly:

Richard Winger, of Bal­lot Access News, is the pre­mier author­ity on bal­lot access issues for third party and inde­pen­dent can­di­dates in the nation. In 1994, Richard wrote a piece enti­tled, “The Impor­tance of Bal­lot Access.” In it, there is a dis­cus­sion about the “two-​party” polit­i­cal sys­tem that exists in Amer­ica. There is a def­i­n­i­tion of what it is and what it is not.

Accord­ing to the arti­cle, in the 19th cen­tury, there was what was called “Vig­or­ous Third Par­ties.” How­ever, since that time, the major two par­ties have passed laws that have squashed any competition:

“Fur­ther­more, in the 19th cen­tury, there was no such thing as pub­lic financ­ing of the two major par­ties, which began for Pres­i­den­tial elec­tions in 1974. Today, the Democ­rats and Repub­li­cans have their cam­paigns for Pres­i­dent financed by the tax­pay­ers. Under the 1974 law, no third party has ever received general-​election pub­lic fund­ing, although a hand­ful of third-​party Pres­i­den­tial can­di­dates have received some pri­mary sea­son funds.”

We no longer have vig­or­ous and active third par­ties because Demo­c­ra­tic and Repub­li­can state leg­is­la­tures passed restric­tive laws that make it exceed­ingly dif­fi­cult for third par­ties to get on the bal­lot in many states. These laws usu­ally require third par­ties to gather sig­na­tures for a peti­tion to be on the state bal­lot, and they often place strict dead­lines for gath­er­ing such signatures.”

2) Both major par­ties are responsible:

Repub­li­cans can talk all they want to about how bad the Demo­c­rat party is, but the fact of the mat­ter is that both par­ties have had their turns at the wheel and we have seen the con­sis­tent destruc­tion of Con­sti­tu­tional prin­ci­ples regard­less of which one was at the helm.

While Ron Paul has cer­tainly espoused the prin­ci­ples that most in the Con­sti­tu­tion Party would agree with, the fact of the mat­ter is, Ron Paul has remained within the Repub­li­can Party that is at least 50% respon­si­ble for the con­di­tion this coun­try is in and the “Glob­al­ist Elites” are in con­trol of both parties.

3) Now is the time!

Last year (2010) there was a Gallup poll that reflected that thirty-​some per­cent of Democ­rats were will­ing to vote out­side their party, while there was only twenty-​some per­cent of Repub­li­cans were will­ing to do so.

This year, the Gallup poll is reflect­ing that 52% of the Repub­li­cans are say­ing that they are will­ing to vote for 3rd Party can­di­dates and over 45% of the Repub­li­cans are say­ing that they are dis­sat­is­fied with their pres­i­den­tial choices that have raised their hands so far.

This means that the Con­sti­tu­tion Party has a golden oppor­tu­nity to snatch up these dis­en­fran­chised Repub­li­can Vot­ers and give them a REAL CHANCE to vote for a true con­ser­v­a­tive in the 2012 elec­tions. If Ron Paul really wants a chance to win the pres­i­dency, he would aban­don the fan­tasy that he can do so through the Repub­li­can Party.

POINT SEVEN – There is only one pos­si­bil­ity for the Con­sti­tu­tion Party to be able to get Dr. Ron Paul elected for President

The only way for the Con­sti­tu­tion Party to get behind and Nom­i­nate Dr. Paul for the office of Pres­i­dent of these United States of Amer­ica is for him to leave the Repub­li­can Party and to seek our nomination.

How­ever, he has made it abun­dantly clear that he has no inten­tion of run­ning as a Con­sti­tu­tion Party or a Lib­er­tar­ian Party can­di­date. So, instead of ask­ing the Con­sti­tu­tion Party to get behind Ron Paul, you should be ask­ing Ron Paul to get behind the Con­sti­tu­tion Party, the real answer to the polit­i­cal woes of this country.